>> I think it would be best to leave timeout=0 returning 0. Not handling it >> differently gives the same semantics as used by fence_wait_time and >> wait_event_timeout. >> Are there really many cases in which you don't know if timeout = 0 before or >> not?
>Yeah I think with this it's more important to be consistent with all the other >wait_something primitives the kernel exposes. Okay. I think we can live with that from driver perspective by handling timeout==0 and timeout>0 differently. But it should still be worth adding some notes for reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu that the return value cannot be used to judge if the fences are signaled or not when timeout==0. Regards, Jammy
